Was Saul Of Tarsus (paul) A Real Apostle?

[Odin]

Ok...

 

Apostle Paul didn't even know Yeshua (Jesus) in person. He claims, that Jesus appeared to him on his way to Damascus.

 

Now here's the fallacy:

 

Paul's writings contradict everything the Gospels stand for. This "apostle" says, that people couldn't possibly obey the law, and that obeying it doesn't solve the problem of sin. Sorry, but it does, cause you're just not doing it anymore.

 

Oh sure, you may screw up here and there, but the word "sinner" is only used for a person who does continuous sin. The person who makes an art of sin is a sinner.

 

Jesus said, that faith (in Him) and works (obeying the law to the best of your ability) get you in to Heaven. Apostle Paul said, that faith alone does it.

 

Apostle Paul actually taught against the Torah (the Jewish law).

 

 

Paul sure had a backward view of Christian morality.

 

What do you guys think?

[SWIM]

Paul sure had a backward view of Christian morality.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

Some xtians themselves even ignore paul. There are lots of cherry picking xtians out there, your not alone thinking his story is false.

 

Also, some churches, like the RCC totally disregard other things in the bible, like the book of rev. for one.

[mwc]

Apostle Paul didn't even know Yeshua (Jesus) in person. He claims, that Jesus appeared to him on his way to Damascus.

Paul never makes this claim. This claim is in Acts and is made on Paul's behalf by someone else. Paul instead claims that jesus appeared to a bunch of people (Peter, the 12, etc.) then last of all him. What that actually means is really anyone's guess. Based on what he says in other places it seems to do with "visions" of some sort?

 

Paul's writings contradict everything the Gospels stand for. This "apostle" says, that people couldn't possibly obey the law, and that obeying it doesn't solve the problem of sin. Sorry, but it does, cause you're just not doing it anymore.

My guess is that you can't keep the Law because, like xianity, the Law is rather contradictory. So how can a person do things that can't be done? Now, the Law is supposedly perfect, and so those contradictions must be due to something to do with us and not the Law. The Law, therefore, must be to expose our limitations and show that we need a different way of doing things. That way would be Paul's way.

 

Paul sure had a backward view of Christian morality.

From what we know it was Paul who was xian morality. The idea that a "jesus" fellow originated any of this is actually the backward view.

 

mwc

[hereticzero]

The false apostle Paul lied about everything from his vision, which he could not repeat correctly three times, to how he bad-mouthed Jesus disciples. Paul was an egotistical bastard that wanted the lime light and be thought of as the great apostle and he openly bragged about this as well as HIS gospel. The christian church delights in being known as the Pauline church, a religion of confusion and deception.

[Stephen_Richard_Webb]

A great source, and a good read concerning the matter of "paulianity" [Paul's form of christianity] is found in Hyam Maccoby's "The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". This book examines each one of Paul's absurdities and attrocities concerning his lying, murderous, manipulative, and anti-semetic message "to the gentiles". Paul seems to have a psychological complex that taints his every word, and this alone spreads a shadow over the entire new testament mainly because his hand is evident in the editing of the earliest gospels [and this is reaffirmed when one realizes his political power and motives and that the oldest books in the new testament are HIS epistles.]

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

Ok...

 

Apostle Paul didn't even know Yeshua (Jesus) in person. He claims, that Jesus appeared to him on his way to Damascus.

 

Now here's the fallacy:

 

Paul's writings contradict everything the Gospels stand for. This "apostle" says, that people couldn't possibly obey the law, and that obeying it doesn't solve the problem of sin. Sorry, but it does, cause you're just not doing it anymore.

Paul's point was that nobody can be justifed by the works of the law, that those who are justified, are justified by faith.

 

you may screw up here and there, but the word "sinner" is only used for a person who does continuous sin. The person who makes an art of sin is a sinner.

If the whole law is not upheld, then that person is guilty.

 

Jesus said, that faith (in Him) and works (obeying the law to the best of your ability) get you in to Heaven. Apostle Paul said, that faith alone does it.

Jesus was speaking to the Jewish people who are given the law. He showed that the law was a spiritual law, not just a physical law. In John 9:28-29, Jesus was asked what they ( the multitudes ) may do to do the works of God. Jesus told them to believe in Him whom He has sent.

 

Apostle Paul actually taught against the Torah (the Jewish law).

No he didn't. In Galations 3:24 he state that the law is a tutor to bring us to Christ. Romans 7 goes over this more extensively. Paul taught against the judizers who where teaching the gentiles that they had to uphold the law as well as believe in Jesus, much like Mormonism.

[hereticzero]

The point is, Paul lied about his vision in order to gain access to the apostles or to pump himself up claiming lying works and wonders. Prove something about Paul is true that he claimed to be true.

[mwc]

Paul's point was that nobody can be justifed by the works of the law, that those who are justified, are justified by faith.

So obeying laws isn't the way? I'll keep that in mind if I get a speeding ticket in the future. "Sorry judge, I just don't think obeying laws is the way to 'justify' things. Tell you what though, I do 'believe' or 'have faith' that your son did something at some point and that somehow overrides these silly old laws. What say you judge? I'm free? For my faith in that thing you son might have done? Why thanks."

 

It's supremely ignorant to go around thinking as you do.

 

If the whole law is not upheld, then that person is guilty.

Really? So if I jay-walk I also commit murder and treason as well as break the entire set of US laws? Seems a little, oh, lets call that ridiculous. And yet you say your "god" cannot see how silly that may be and thus breaking one of his Laws is like breaking them all. Something us lowly humans can see the error in doing. Laws are a guide. The OT "god" (monster though he be) did not expect "perfection" and so doing your best was all that was asked (sure some things got you killed ASAP but that was the way of the world).

 

Jesus was speaking to the Jewish people who are given the law. He showed that the law was a spiritual law, not just a physical law. In John 9:28-29, Jesus was asked what they ( the multitudes ) may do to do the works of God. Jesus told them to believe in Him whom He has sent.

Can I play this?

 

MWC how can we do <thing>?

 

Well, people, in order to do <thing> you must simply believe in He who is sent by GOD. To clarify that would be me, MWC. Just do what I say. All the time. Don't question. And <thing> just might happen if both me and god want it to happen. Keep the faith.

 

That's fun. Especially since it seems that game now gives me all the answers (since god says I have all the answers since I said god said I do...and god wouldn't lie...how dare you even think such a thing).

 

No he didn't. In Galations 3:24 he state that the law is a tutor to bring us to Christ. Romans 7 goes over this more extensively. Paul taught against the judizers who where teaching the gentiles that they had to uphold the law as well as believe in Jesus, much like Mormonism.

To teach against the Torah might be considered blasphemy so, of course, Paul was careful to not teach against it (as in toss the Torah). But to say that the Torah is a tutor, blah, blah, is just funny because the Torah and xianity are just tutors to bring you to MWC. Learn my ways and be my people. Are you buying? People bought what Paul was selling but he tried harder. The idea is the same though. Paul wanted converts and he said what he said to get them. If I really wanted converts I'd come up with some slick sales pitch to get them too. It's not that complicated.

 

mwc

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

So obeying laws isn't the way? I'll keep that in mind if I get a speeding ticket in the future. "Sorry judge, I just don't think obeying laws is the way to 'justify' things. Tell you what though, I do 'believe' or 'have faith' that your son did something at some point and that somehow overrides these silly old laws. What say you judge? I'm free? For my faith in that thing you son might have done? Why thanks."

 

It's supremely ignorant to go around thinking as you do.

Paul in Romans 8 talks about being set free from the law of sin and the ability to live the righteous life his mind wants to by the power of God's Holy Spirit. Paul taught against salvation by works.

 

Really? So if I jay-walk I also commit murder and treason as well as break the entire set of US laws? Seems a little, oh, lets call that ridiculous. And yet you say your "god" cannot see how silly that may be and thus breaking one of his Laws is like breaking them all. Something us lowly humans can see the error in doing. Laws are a guide. The OT "god" (monster though he be) did not expect "perfection" and so doing your best was all that was asked (sure some things got you killed ASAP but that was the way of the world).

Actually, the law was given, by the angels through a mediator, in order to show us our sinful nature and need for a Savior. Without the law, we would have never known the true state of our nature and standing before God. So it really isn't a matter of breaking it, but a matter of recognizing the demands of a righteous God and His requirments to be accepted through our own righteousness. God never gave the law expecting us to follow every aspect perfectly, but to bring us to His grace in Christ Jesus.

 

Can I play this?

 

MWC how can we do <thing>?

 

Well, people, in order to do <thing> you must simply believe in He who is sent by GOD. To clarify that would be me, MWC. Just do what I say. All the time. Don't question. And <thing> just might happen if both me and god want it to happen. Keep the faith.

 

That's fun. Especially since it seems that game now gives me all the answers (since god says I have all the answers since I said god said I do...and god wouldn't lie...how dare you even think such a thing).

Righteousness was accounted to Abraham because He believed God. However, he wasn't perfect nor did he have all the answers. He often went to God with his unbelif and God would remind him of His promises. God will reason with us if we are reasonable.

 

To teach against the Torah might be considered blasphemy so, of course, Paul was careful to not teach against it (as in toss the Torah). But to say that the Torah is a tutor, blah, blah, is just funny because the Torah and xianity are just tutors to bring you to MWC. Learn my ways and be my people. Are you buying? People bought what Paul was selling but he tried harder. The idea is the same though. Paul wanted converts and he said what he said to get them. If I really wanted converts I'd come up with some slick sales pitch to get them too. It's not that complicated.

 

mwc

Were all converted to something and we all have our masters. However, I don't think you understood Paul's posistion. If it was his goal to have converts, he would have remained a Pharisee and lived a life free of persecution. If you realize how much Othordox Jews ( Pharisee ) despise Gentiles, you would understand the nature of Paul's conversion. You can argue that he was crazy, but you can't argue that something happened to him that completely changed his very being. To go from a Pharisee to the Apostle of the Gentiles, from the Law to grace; these are great testimonies that he did encounter Jesus.

 

And again, he didn't teach against the Torah, as a matter of fact, he often quoted it in his epistles. He taught against the notion of being able to follow the law into salvation.

[Neon Genesis]

God never gave the law expecting us to follow every aspect perfectly, but to bring us to His grace in Christ Jesus.

If God never expected us to follow every aspect of the law perfectly, then why did God punish the Israelites with the death penalty simply for stealing? Do you think we should punish people for stealing with the death penalty in modern times? Why not? If it was good enough for God in the OT, then why can't it be good enough for us in modern times? God sounds pretty perfectionist to me. And if God never expected the Israelites to follow the old law perfectly, then why didn't he just go ahead and send Jesus and skip all those useless sacrifices and pointless wondering around the desert for 40 days? Does God enjoy abusing animals or something?

 

Righteousness was accounted to Abraham because He believed God.

Oh, so we should have faith like Abraham? Ok, then, if you had a son and God commanded you to kill him, would you do it? If you would, why do you think this is moral? If not, why do you worship God? And you can't say "God will never give us something we cant bear" because God gave this commandment to Abraham and Abraham went along with it. So, if you really believe in having faith like Abraham, if you ever had a son and God commanded you to kill him, then you must obey him and kill your son, or otherwise you don't have faith like Abraham and you were a liar.

 

If it was his goal to have converts, he would have remained a Pharisee and lived a life free of persecution.

What exactly does Paul being a Pharisee have anything to do with wanting converts? We're not talking about Paul wanting converts to Judaism, we're talking about Paul wanting converts to Christianity. Do you actually think before you speak or do you always just spout out the first thing that reaches your mouth?

 

To go from a Pharisee to the Apostle of the Gentiles, from the Law to grace; these are great testimonies that he did encounter Jesus.

First you must prove that Paul really had a vision. And no, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is real. That's like saying that Lord Of The Rings proves that Saruman is real. It's complete nonsense to do so.

 

And again, he didn't teach against the Torah, as a matter of fact, he often quoted it in his epistles. He taught against the notion of being able to follow the law into salvation.

If Paul didn't teach against the Torah, then why did Paul teach against circumcision? You do realize that circumcision is a commandment in the Torah that Paul preached against, right? Have you ever actually read the bible yourself or are you just repeating everything your preacher tells you?

[Mongo]

Mercury,

 

(Note: I'm not interested in a pissing match nor do I wish to attack you. The following is how I view the issue raised...)

 

Apostle Paul actually taught against the Torah (the Jewish law).

No he didn't. In Galations 3:24 he state that the law is a tutor to bring us to Christ. Romans 7 goes over this more extensively. Paul taught against the judizers who where teaching the gentiles that they had to uphold the law as well as believe in Jesus, much like Mormonism.

 

I've heard this put many different ways but I continue to perceive a contradiction in this.

 

In the OT we read about god giving the law to Moses. Repeatedly god sends fire, brimstone and all manor of retribution for not following the law.

 

Thousands of years later we have Paul who tells us that we don't have to "follow" the law.

 

And I am told that "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever". (I see that as also meaning god)

 

During my 10 fundamentalist years, thoughts similar to this would come into my mind and I would wonder how those ideas aligned. I always assumed that I didn't know enough about the bible and that if I read my bible enough, prayed enough and listened to enough sermons, it would sink in.

 

The opposite happened. The more time I spent in church, praying and reading, the more I collected such thological problems that I could not resolve without developing an ever more complicated theology. A theology in which the problems still existed but were more subtle and more difficult to sort through.

 

I believe dispensationalism is the premier example. In short, it argues that god reveals different sides of his nature in different parts of the bible with would then be divided into distinct categories called dispensations. Here is a summary...

 

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/dispensa.htm

At least three dispensations (as commonly understood in dispensationalism) are mentioned by Paul: one preceding the present time (Col. 1:25 - 26), the present arrangement (Eph. 3:2), and a future administration (Eph. 1:10). These three require a fourth, one before the law, and a prelaw dispensation would seem to need to be divided into pre - and postfall economies. Thus five administrations seem clearly distinguishable (at least within a premillennial understanding of Scripture). The usual sevenfold scheme includes a new economy after the Noahic flood and another with the call of Abraham.

 

Dispensationalist theologians have gone so far as to say that (paraphrase) "Prophecy makes no sense outside the construct of dispensationalism".

 

I see such things as confirming that Pauline theology presents a god that does change and is not the "same yesterday today and forever".

 

The whole of modern christianity owes its theology to Paul who went to great lengths to resolve this basic issue of following the law. To this day, fundamentalists argue over faith versus works.

 

Scriptures like: "Faith without works is dead" and "For by grace you are saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is a gift of god not works lest any man shall boast."

 

I can't look at that as anything other than a significant and fundamental difference from the OT and in my opinion, it is a clear statement that god (Jesus) changes.

 

Paul goes on however to say that the OT was never actually about works but rather faith.

 

It begs the question... if faith and the sacrifice of Jesus is so important, why didn't god just make it happen at the fall of man. If it were that way, I could understand that god does not change.

 

The more I looked into it the less I found it believable and so I am no longer a believer.

 

Mongo

[mwc]

Paul in Romans 8 talks about being set free from the law of sin and the ability to live the righteous life his mind wants to by the power of God's Holy Spirit. Paul taught against salvation by works.

And so ignoring what I said (as I'm quite certain you've nothing worthwhile to contribute) we'll continue with Paul.

 

So Paul, in Romans 8 talks about all of this. So?

 

Actually, the law was given, by the angels through a mediator, in order to show us our sinful nature and need for a Savior. Without the law, we would have never known the true state of our nature and standing before God. So it really isn't a matter of breaking it, but a matter of recognizing the demands of a righteous God and His requirments to be accepted through our own righteousness. God never gave the law expecting us to follow every aspect perfectly, but to bring us to His grace in Christ Jesus.

Are you listening to yourself?

 

Without the law we would have never known how crappy we really are and what "god" really thinks about us. We wouldn't understand that no matter what we did that this "god" would never, ever, have anything to do with us if we simply behaved as humans and this "god" simply rejects us. So, to show us how truly repulsive we are this "god" thought it "good" to send a few "rules and regulations" so that we'd eventually hit bottom and understand that we need his ultimate pity or face total destruction in a place of his own creation.

 

How about...we're humans. We act as humans act. If "god" don't like it he can fuck off? If we're not "good enough" then I hear there's two others just like him that he can have a circle jerk with. But it's not up to me to "live up to" his standards and I'm not going to ("god" forbid) want him to take pity or have some "grace" or or wretched critter like myself who can't even be more than what I am. I'm human. It's not "right," it's not "wrong," it just is. I feel sad for people that can't accept that fact and feel shame for what they are. Paul being one of the biggest offenders.

 

Righteousness was accounted to Abraham because He believed God. However, he wasn't perfect nor did he have all the answers. He often went to God with his unbelif and God would remind him of His promises. God will reason with us if we are reasonable.

Abraham, being likely fictitious, could probably fly too. What do I care?

 

"God" is no respecter of persons. "God" couldn't give two shits if you're reasonable or not. "God" being omniscient already knows if something will or won't be. So "reasoning" isn't something that will happen. It might appear that way from your perspective but the decision is made and you're just a pawn in the cosmic game. But the characters in the comics always seem to be ignorant of what's about to happen in the very next panel even though I, the reader, can see it quite clearly. Their "free will" is an obvious illusion to me. However, if arguing the case of Abraham and his mighty "god" that had to come down to eat some bread and check to see if some cities needed the hurt put to them makes you feel better then so be it. After that we can argue if the Enterprise could take a Star Destroyer (or even better...why is there only a single female Smurf? And how do Smurf's tell if they have blue balls?).

 

Were all converted to something and we all have our masters. However, I don't think you understood Paul's posistion. If it was his goal to have converts, he would have remained a Pharisee and lived a life free of persecution. If you realize how much Othordox Jews ( Pharisee ) despise Gentiles, you would understand the nature of Paul's conversion. You can argue that he was crazy, but you can't argue that something happened to him that completely changed his very being. To go from a Pharisee to the Apostle of the Gentiles, from the Law to grace; these are great testimonies that he did encounter Jesus.

I guess I don't understand Paul's "posistion." His "position," on the other hand, I am aware of. Being a Pharisee would have gained him "converts" how exactly? As well as a "life free from persecution?" How so? Are you not aware of the secular violence during 1st CE? Can you be so sure that Paul would have lived so care free a life? Not only were the Jews fighting amongst themselves but the Jews were stirring up troubles elsewhere and getting into problems. Oh, but wait, it was only the one or two events down in Jerusalem that culminated in the loss of the temple that occurred in that period, right? That's all we need know or care about. Ever.

 

The fact that you're using the term "Orthodox Jews" and "Pharisees" synonymously shows me that you're the one that needs to go back and research this a little bit more.

 

Something happened to Paul. To go from Pharisee (the "xianity" of today BTW) to a variation thereof sure must have taken something pretty big alright. I mean, xianity sure hasn't fractured at all. It's the singular pillar of strength it has always been and all those who profess to be xians are full-on bible thumping fundies. Go anywhere and quiz people on the bible and they can quote it chapter and verse along with the associated dogma because they are a unified group alright. Paul, being a Pharisee, who went as far as anyone could (whatever that really means) by his very own admission and, why would he lie after all, surely had no motivation to splinter off into a new group. There's nothing like it to compare it to today, or in the history of the world, so I can't give you examples. I guess "magic" is the only real answer we can trust in such a unique situation such as this.

 

And again, he didn't teach against the Torah, as a matter of fact, he often quoted it in his epistles. He taught against the notion of being able to follow the law into salvation.

What's this "salvation" you speak of?

 

mwc

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

If God never expected us to follow every aspect of the law perfectly, then why did God punish the Israelites with the death penalty simply for stealing? Do you think we should punish people for stealing with the death penalty in modern times? Why not? If it was good enough for God in the OT, then why can't it be good enough for us in modern times? God sounds pretty perfectionist to me. And if God never expected the Israelites to follow the old law perfectly, then why didn't he just go ahead and send Jesus and skip all those useless sacrifices and pointless wondering around the desert for 40 days? Does God enjoy abusing animals or something?

I made a mistake here. God demands that we live up to the law if we refuse grace, but He knows that we cannot... Hence, Jesus Christ. Sorry for my miscommunication there.

 

Oh, so we should have faith like Abraham? Ok, then, if you had a son and God commanded you to kill him, would you do it? If you would, why do you think this is moral? If not, why do you worship God? And you can't say "God will never give us something we cant bear" because God gave this commandment to Abraham and Abraham went along with it. So, if you really believe in having faith like Abraham, if you ever had a son and God commanded you to kill him, then you must obey him and kill your son, or otherwise you don't have faith like Abraham and you were a liar.

This is why Abraham was faithful. He knew that Issac was the seed in which God would fulfill His promises. Abraham probably didn't know what God was doing, but He trused God because Abrham had faith in who God is. Often God will ask us to give up the things we hold most precious to Him so that what is most precious to us is Him.

 

What exactly does Paul being a Pharisee have anything to do with wanting converts? We're not talking about Paul wanting converts to Judaism, we're talking about Paul wanting converts to Christianity. Do you actually think before you speak or do you always just spout out the first thing that reaches your mouth?

Why would Paul want converts of a religion he despised? If you know anything about the Jewish Orthodoxy you would understand the point I made. Paul wouldn't forsake all that he believed and worked to become just to have converts of a religion he wanted to destroy.

 

First you must prove that Paul really had a vision. And no, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is real. That's like saying that Lord Of The Rings proves that Saruman is real. It's complete nonsense to do so.

So I can't use the Bible to prove that it is real? Do you hold all books that make truth claims to the same standard?

 

If Paul didn't teach against the Torah, then why did Paul teach against circumcision? You do realize that circumcision is a commandment in the Torah that Paul preached against, right? Have you ever actually read the bible yourself or are you just repeating everything your preacher tells you?

Abrham was considered righteous by faith ( Gen.15 ) before the covenant of circumcision was given ( Gen. 17 ). Circumcision was given to remind God's people of His convenant with them.

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

What do I care?

Yes, why do you?

[Grandpa Harley]

I think it's because mental cripples keep turning up to tell good folks like MWC that they all didn't understand Christianity like the window licking attention whore Christians who turn up do...

 

and yes, I do beleive I'm talking about YOU...

 

Why are you here?

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

Mercury,

 

(Note: I'm not interested in a pissing match nor do I wish to attack you. The following is how I view the issue raised...)

Thanks. I don't know everything by a long shot, and I'm willing to be proven wrong. I only hope that we are able to find truth, or at the very least, have a fun discussion.

 

 

 

I've heard this put many different ways but I continue to perceive a contradiction in this.

 

In the OT we read about god giving the law to Moses. Repeatedly god sends fire, brimstone and all manor of retribution for not following the law.

 

Thousands of years later we have Paul who tells us that we don't have to "follow" the law.

 

And I am told that "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever". (I see that as also meaning god)

 

During my 10 fundamentalist years, thoughts similar to this would come into my mind and I would wonder how those ideas aligned. I always assumed that I didn't know enough about the bible and that if I read my bible enough, prayed enough and listened to enough sermons, it would sink in.

 

The opposite happened. The more time I spent in church, praying and reading, the more I collected such thological problems that I could not resolve without developing an ever more complicated theology. A theology in which the problems still existed but were more subtle and more difficult to sort through.

First, I don't think I can explain this any better than you've probably already heard. If your willing to at least toy with the idea that the God of the Bible is true, than you would also have to expect that we cannot always understand His purposes because His intellegence greatly exceeds our own. God told us to believe Him, not understand everything that He does. There comes a point where one has to just accept that God is who he says He is, and just let the questions go. I believe that I have enough proof that I can reasonably do that. If I didn't believe God or in God, than I would have to have faith that God doesn't exsist and there is no eternal paradise or hell. At least that is the way I look at it.

 

I was thinking about your question as to why God just didn't send Jesus immediately after the fall and I would reply that it wasn't in God's timing. Why did God create man at all if He knew he was going to sin I think would be a better question.

 

As far as the other point you raised about dispensationalism, I would have to tell you I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make any sort of responce. But it was such a good question that I want to actually look further into it. I've heard about before, but I never really considered studying the topic.

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

I think it's because mental cripples keep turning up to tell good folks like MWC that they all didn't understand Christianity like the window licking attention whore Christians who turn up do...

 

and yes, I do beleive I'm talking about YOU...

 

Why are you here?

 

1. I wouldn't debate the mentally cripple comment. I know that there are better and smarter people than I to talk abot such things.

 

2. However, I'm not so insecure in my beliefs that I have to attack people who don't agree with me.

 

3. I never said that I knew more than anybody. MWC may very well know more than I. But how would I know if I didn't talk with him?

 

4. I'm here because I found the site interesting and I'm having issues with what I believe right now. Also, it's a free forum. If I outlive my welcome, I'm sure the administrator will ban me.

[Grandpa Harley]

A priori assumption of a God, or the fall or any of the other legends of the Jews and later the Pagans of Late Antiquity is fallacious... one may as well ask why the Shinto gods stirred the cauldron of chaos or The Bhrama dreamed the universe into being then entered it...

 

All meaningless questions unless one believes, and then one really doesn't know which one is 'right'... I like the idea of a giant dung beetle pushing the sun... and the earth being a disc on the back of four elephants on the back of a giant turtle swimming to some unknown shore on the seas of infinity...

[Grandpa Harley]

I think it's because mental cripples keep turning up to tell good folks like MWC that they all didn't understand Christianity like the window licking attention whore Christians who turn up do...

 

and yes, I do beleive I'm talking about YOU...

 

Why are you here?

 

1. I wouldn't debate the mentally cripple comment. I know that there are better and smarter people than I to talk abot such things.

 

2. However, I'm not so insecure in my beliefs that I have to attack people who don't agree with me.

 

3. I never said that I knew more than anybody. MWC may very well know more than I. But how would I know if I didn't talk with him?

 

4. I'm here because I found the site interesting and I'm having issues with what I believe right now. Also, it's a free forum. If I outlive my welcome, I'm sure the administrator will ban me.

 

Well, you came in insulting out of the box, so I was returning the complement in spades... as is my wont.

 

since there is no real welcome for apologists, you won't out live yours... but you you will be used as a plaything... they don't ban people here very easily. the place is called 'Ex_Chrisitians'... look upon it as Alcoholics Anonymous for the Cult escapees... it's a support group, not a place to win souls... long as you know this we'll get along just fine... pushing Smirnoff or Stoli I don't like... capice?

 

And your exposition on the meaning of the scriptures does mean you think you have a special understanding... I'd reel the attitude in... and spare the Uriah Heep 'everso 'humble' bull shit... it fools no one cept you and really, I'm just saving time.

[Mongo]

What exactly does Paul being a Pharisee have anything to do with wanting converts? We're not talking about Paul wanting converts to Judaism, we're talking about Paul wanting converts to Christianity. Do you actually think before you speak or do you always just spout out the first thing that reaches your mouth?

Why would Paul want converts of a religion he despised? If you know anything about the Jewish Orthodoxy you would understand the point I made. Paul wouldn't forsake all that he believed and worked to become just to have converts of a religion he wanted to destroy.

 

Please allow me to wander into a comment on this...

 

All fundamentalists I know believe that their 'brand' is unique and is not 'religion'. They believe their experiences are unique and not to be found anywhere else. This is pretty much universal for fundamentalists.

 

As far as I can learn from reading and my own experiences, there is nothing factual to show that any variety of religion anywhere is unique. In fact, if we simply take everybody's testamonies as valid evidence, as a jury, I think we are compelled to accept that all experiences found in all brands of christianity' are found all over the world, in other religions and in history.

 

How does that explain Pauls turning his back on the Jews and evangelizing the gentiles?

 

To me, Paul was no different than Martin Luther, Joseph Rutherford (Charles Russell), Joseph Smith or Momammed.

 

Each of the leaders above had some form of charisma and I would imagine that Paul did too. I would imagine that Paul moved into christianity the same way that the others fell into their respective cults. They were unsatisfied with the status quo and after a time of searching, hit upon a message that resonated with others. Gaining a small following, they organize, preach build and write.

 

Paul did these things and his particular genius was to put his doctrine in writing - something that Jesus and his 12 Apostles neglected to do. (That in itself utterly astounds me. It is a baffling oversight.)

 

As to Paul wanting to destroy Judaism, I rather doubt that. Leaders tend to focus on what they can build not what they can tear down. Hence, I interpret his conflict with Judaism as mob control and PR. Hence it was more advantageous to say that Jesus 'fulfilled' the law rather than destroyed it which would be far more inflamatory.

 

Paul and the fledgling Jesus group were a perfect marriage of opportunity favoring the prepared mind(Paul's). Paul took the basics and brought it to a whole new clientele. The rest is history which repeats itself each time a new cult is born.

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

Mercury,

 

Tough crowd huh?

 

I appreciate your comments.

 

First, I don't think I can explain this any better than you've probably already heard. If your willing to at least toy with the idea that the God of the Bible is true, than you would also have to expect that we cannot always understand His purposes because His intellegence greatly exceeds our own. God told us to believe Him, not understand everything that He does.

Here is the problem I have with this.

First, if god is that smart and wanted me to understand him then he either could have made me with a greater ability to understand him or conversely god could condescend to our level so we can better understand him.

 

As it is, I'm always confronted with having to trust a fellow human (dead or alive) who claims to represent god. To me that sucks.

 

There comes a point where one has to just accept that God is who he says He is, and just let the questions go.

Since god reveals himself through people, I find myself at odds with the credibility of gods 'agents'.

 

And, to paraphrase Bart Ehrman, if god reveals himself through his word, god has done a terrible job of perserving it.

 

As to "personal" proof... it goes back to my other post where I mention that all experiences in religion can always be found in a competing religion.

 

We have tongue talkers, holy ghost people and all sorts here who say their experiences were all lather, no soap.

 

It ends up being a "he says, she says" argument and ultimately each one of us is responsible to themselves to be honest with themselves and desire to understand what is true more than want something something to be true for another reason.

 

I was thinking about your question as to why God just didn't send Jesus immediately after the fall and I would reply that it wasn't in God's timing. Why did God create man at all if He knew he was going to sin I think would be a better question.

 

Good question. I can't make sense of that either.

 

Mongo

[mwc]

What do I care?

Yes, why do you?

You came here. Did I miss something? Should I apologize for not taking your sermon seriously? Instead of just telling me what the bible says, as if I'm not aware, why don't you try something unique? You see...I don't care what Paul says. Paul could time travel to my front door and scream it into my face and I would tell him to go rape himself with his own walking stick (without lube). I simply do not care about Paul. I don't care about his friend Skip (yes, he had a friend named Skip that he rarely mentioned) and I don't care about their secret love affair (not Paul and Skip's but rather Skip and the walking stick...don't tell Paul). I don't recognize Paul as an authority on anything but the letters that Paul wrote. That's all that has ever been established and yet you want me to accept Paul as an authority on the YHWH, Hebrew bible, the Torah, the 613 Laws, the Pharisees, Judaism in general, all of xianity, jesus and really myself as well. No. That's not going to happen. There's no reason for it to happen. Paul was (barely) an authority on himself. He twisted the OT to do his bidding and really he acted on the authority of a vision. If you accept the authority of a vision, second hand without verification, then have at it. I do not.

 

mwc

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

You came here. Did I miss something? Should I apologize for not taking your sermon seriously? Instead of just telling me what the bible says, as if I'm not aware, why don't you try something unique? You see...I don't care what Paul says. Paul could time travel to my front door and scream it into my face and I would tell him to go rape himself with his own walking stick (without lube). I simply do not care about Paul. I don't care about his friend Skip (yes, he had a friend named Skip that he rarely mentioned) and I don't care about their secret love affair (not Paul and Skip's but rather Skip and the walking stick...don't tell Paul). I don't recognize Paul as an authority on anything but the letters that Paul wrote. That's all that has ever been established and yet you want me to accept Paul as an authority on the YHWH, Hebrew bible, the Torah, the 613 Laws, the Pharisees, Judaism in general, all of xianity, jesus and really myself as well. No. That's not going to happen. There's no reason for it to happen. Paul was (barely) an authority on himself. He twisted the OT to do his bidding and really he acted on the authority of a vision. If you accept the authority of a vision, second hand without verification, then have at it. I do not.

 

mwc

I never asked you to accept anything I said. I just wanted have a discussion about the subject. I don't understand why your so hostile about something you say you do not believe and towards someone you don't know.

 

Your the first person I've ever heard claim that Paul wasn't an authority on the OT.

 

Paul also got the original apostles to bless his ministry. So apparently they believed that Paul had a vision considering they wouldn't even have gave him an audience had it not been for Barnabus.

 

Yes. He twisited the OT to do his bidding so he could be beating, hated, scorned, ship-wrecked and eventually beheaded.

[Grandpa Harley]

Reading some of Paul's comments to certain gentile groups indicates he:

 

1) didn't know the OT

2) knew it but was deliberately distorting it's meaning

3) lying to make his point...

 

but Primero-Paul was a self confessed liar, and the Deutero-Paul was probably as Jewish as I am...

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

Well, you came in insulting out of the box, so I was returning the complement in spades... as is my wont.

How was I insulting to you?

 

since there is no real welcome for apologists, you won't out live yours... but you you will be used as a plaything... they don't ban people here very easily. the place is called 'Ex_Chrisitians'... look upon it as Alcoholics Anonymous for the Cult escapees... it's a support group, not a place to win souls... long as you know this we'll get along just fine... pushing Smirnoff or Stoli I don't like... capice?

Paranoid much? When did I try and win souls?

 

And your exposition on the meaning of the scriptures does mean you think you have a special understanding... I'd reel the attitude in... and spare the Uriah Heep 'everso 'humble' bull shit... it fools no one cept you and really, I'm just saving time.

It's not special understanding, it's called an opinion.