Ouroboros Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Son of Belial I have never heard that about the Pharasees. I must admit I really like what I hear, but how can we know this that you give us is true? You never heard of the Pharisees and the Saducees? Huh... kids learn nothing in church anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 That is an interesting perspective, Hans. I'd like to add also that of all the Pauline epistles, only like 7 are confirmed to be that of Paul. Only 7, I didn't know that it was that few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Initially, it was said that Jesus was only for the salvation of the Jews. This was believed until Paul claimed he was an apostle to the Gentiles. The other apostles didn't know what to make of it until the dream: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is one of the 1 + 1 = 6 3/4 in the bible. (does not add up) The alleged Jesus supposedly said in the Great commission - go into all the world and preach the gospel. Pretty clear direction that salvation was not just for the jews. Doesn't make sense that it later took a special revelation for Peter and continual insistence from Paul in order for them to find out that the gospel was for the gentiles too. You cannot reconcile this, unless the "great commission" was written sometime after Paul's writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 While I was researching "biblical" quotes I came across a scripture that did actuall state that Peter was commisioned to preach to the Jews, While Paul was commisioned to preach to the Gentiles. I could find it if you wish, but would rather not. I googled "who wrote the book of peter" and came up with this website. It is a christian one and it is innaccurate but it does give some interesting ideas of when and what order the NT was written in. I say it is innaccurate because modern theologions(sp) have now decided that Revalations was not written by the Apostle John, but a different John. http://www.layhands.com/WhoWroteTheNewTestament.htm Please remember that I am not a christian nor do I believe that the bible is the "inspired word of god", I do however believe that it is as accurate as a history book as anyother. (not 100% accurate, but there is some truth in it historically wise). and also, I only claim to be able to be 90% correct when using the bible to debate and about 2% when it comes to other books debunking the christian beliefs. I sometimes forget it myself. I was rereading this and the urge to be "right" is strong, but we are talking about a religion that I hate, so why would I be upset when it is pointed out that I was wrong? Illogical as it is it is the truth. This conversation debunking the teaching of Paul has now offically gone way over my head. Uncomfortable but not unexpected. I am learning and I thank you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 I will now proceed to troll this conversation and just read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 This is rich - a bunch of ex-Christians debating about Biblical authorship! LOL I love it. I'm no scholar myself, but I've been doing a LOT of reading on the topic of the authenticity of Biblical texts. As I have been exploring the possibility that, just perhaps, there is not a God I have looked at certain key points in the Bible. No matter how you slice it up, the Bible makes many claims that just don't mesh with current scientific and archaeological data. The earth and humanity both test out MUCH older than the Bible's claim of less than 10,000 years. There is no data indicating a global flood. Ancient Egyptian records record no plagues or mass exodus of people. No evidence can be found for the Davidic or Solomonic kingdoms. No historians outside of the Bible mentioned Jesus. And we have nothing better than church tradition to indicate the authenticity of the new testament letters. Given all that, it is no surprise to me that even Paul's existence as an historical figure is in doubt. IMHO, it's all myth, story-telling and legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 You never heard of the Pharisees and the Saducees? Huh... kids learn nothing in church anymore... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me with a mallet --> <-- Hans taking his lumps! hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts