2000 Years of Pauline Christianity

[Ronin Truth]

No, you misread my post you quoted right there^^. (Intentionally?) Note I said "debate and discourse".

Most of the potential 'discoursees' I have on ignore. BTW, I still ain't the thread topic. And you are adding nothing 'ON TOPIC' of value, except for thread bumps.

The positive claim is the thesis of your copypasta. Did you forget to read it?

Only in an argument or discourse, and then only maybe. Nope, I read it, liked it and chose to share it. THE END.

I've read it. It doesn't prove what your claiming in this thread.

What am I claiming in this thread?

Judging by the ridiculous number of threads you post on this topic, you do!

Ridiculous to you. Whoever sold you the mind reading course really owes you a refund.
I just sometimes like rocking the boat.

//

 

[Jamesiv1]

Indeed, RT, erowe and hb are correct.

Peter even speaks highly of Paul in his epistle.

Paul spent lots of time in Jerusalem with Peter, James, and the other apostles, and was ultimately accepted by them as an apostle himself, called by Jesus Himself.

The apostles had every reason to not want to accept Paul as an apostle -- yet they did. If they thought he was legit, so should we.

Ergo, his writings are apostolic and scripture, and preach the same gospel as all the other apostles and Christ himself.

It's Christianity 101, and this Jesus v. Paul stuff you're messing around with is just wrong.

Paul and Jesus don't teach a different salvation, or different doctrines. As you're fond of google searches, try something like "the apostleship of Paul" perhaps.

I found this: http://theos.org/media/category/124/

Christianity 101 is that Jesus was preaching to the Jewish common people, teaching them how to have a close, personal relationship with God without the hypocrisy of the State and it's oppressive taxation and laws.

Christianity as we know it today was totally dreamed up by Paul.

 

[erowe1]

Christianity 101 is that Jesus was preaching to the Jewish common people, teaching them how to have a close, personal relationship with God without the hypocrisy of the State and it's oppressive taxation and laws.

Christianity as we know it today was totally dreamed up by Paul.

That's your religious dogma. So, from that starting point, of course Paul didn't really meet Jesus in the flesh. The resurrection of Jesus never happened in the first place and was an invention of Paul's.

Notice the circularity of your argument.

And you still can't explain why all of the people who belonged to Jesus' inner circle when he was preaching to those common people of Galilee endorsed Paul's gospel as identical with their own. You also have to remove major portions of the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels and say that they were added to the tradition later under the influence of Paul because they match "Christianity as we know it today" too much.

 

[Jamesiv1]

That was a meeting in the flesh. You call it a hallucination, but none of the historical records of the meeting call it that.

What historical records?

You mean the writings (many authored by Paul) that were assembled to support Paul's psychotic break with reality? Which then became the State Religion adopted by the most brutal empire the world has ever seen?

 

[erowe1]

What historical records?

You mean the writings (many authored by Paul) that were assembled to support Paul's psychotic break with reality? Which then became the State Religion adopted by the most brutal empire the world has ever seen?

There's that circularity again.

The historical records I mean are the only ones that actually exist. Where are your historical records that call it a hallucination?

Incidentally, during Paul's own lifetime he was opposed by the Roman Empire and ultimately put to death for preaching Christianity.

 

[Jamesiv1]

That's your religious dogma. So, from that starting point, of course Paul didn't really meet Jesus in the flesh. The resurrection of Jesus never happened in the first place and was an invention of Paul's.

Notice the circularity of your argument.

And you still can't explain why all of the people who belonged to Jesus' inner circle when he was preaching to those common people of Galilee endorsed Paul's gospel as identical with their own. You also have to remove major portions of the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels and say that they were added to the tradition later under the influence of Paul because they match "Christianity as we know it today" too much.

What "circularity"?

The resurrection never happened in the first place because Jesus didn't die on the cross.

On what are you basing your assertion that Jesus' inner circle endorsed Paul?

 

[Jamesiv1]

Where are your historical records that call it a hallucination?

Probably the same historical documents you refer to.

He was seeing things that weren't there, and hearing voices.

Merriam Webster
: something (such as an image, a sound, or a smell) that seems real but does not really exist and that is usually caused by mental illness or the effect of a drug
: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)

Dictionary.com
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.

 

[Theocrat]

What You Don't Know About Paul

I grew up accepting the 'evidence' (so called) on faith, but then I read the book again. The Paulinists AKA Christians (so called) just have no problems with ignoring and arguing the parts of the Bible that they just don't like. That's most of the reasons that I have so many of them here on ignore. They're just a total waste of time and keystrokes. TJ and others were correct, only Jesus matters.

Ronin, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in relation to Paul's theology. It's funny how you consider yourself more educated about the relationship between Jesus and Paul when world-renown Biblical scholars, such as N.T. Wright, have been applauded for their research and writings about Paul's life and theology.

If you have any serious, objective interest in how Paul's theology was consistent with Christ's doctrines, then I recommend that you watch this lecture from one of the best Pauline scholars in the world, and learn something:

N. T. Wright approaches the Apostle Paul as the world's first, and greatest, Christian theologian. Much of his lifetime study has had Paul, his life and writings, as the focus. He has offered detailed insights into Paul's life and times for over 30 years, beginning with his dissertation on Pauline Theology and Romans and continuing through his recently released, two-volume Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In between those writings, Wright has produced over 60 books, many of which have dealt with Paul, and another one is soon to be released, Paul and His Recent Interpreters.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Probably the same historical documents you refer to.

He was seeing things that weren't there, and hearing voices.

Merriam Webster
: something (such as an image, a sound, or a smell) that seems real but does not really exist and that is usually caused by mental illness or the effect of a drug
: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)

Dictionary.com
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.

I've seen some speculation that it might have been an epileptic seizure. There are some other speculations about it, perhaps involving Satan.

Occam's Razor would support the 'Paul Lied' conclusion as being the most likely and most simple.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Theo didn't do that in this thread. And King James was a "Paulinist" by your deifnition, FYI.

NOT THE THREAD TOPIC!

A word to the wise is usually sufficient.

Don't push it.

 

[RJB]

A word to the wise is usually sufficient.

And yet with you, hundreds of replies to such threads are insufficient. Hmmm?

 

[georgiaboy]

Probably the same historical documents you refer to.

He was seeing things that weren't there, and hearing voices.

Merriam Webster
: something (such as an image, a sound, or a smell) that seems real but does not really exist and that is usually caused by mental illness or the effect of a drug
: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)

Dictionary.com
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.

A hallucination that made Paul physically blind and changed him from a Jewish leader and persecutor of Christians to one with similar authority as the twelve who walked with Jesus.
A hallucination that caused him to be the most persecuted person on the planet, up to his beheading in Rome.
A hallucination that changed a man from a fighter to a lover, a taker to a giver, a master to a slave, all by choice.

This was the man you say is merely deluded or a liar. The delusion or misrepresentation is on your part.

Yours is a tired and dangerous path, tried before and failed over and over again, ultimately heretical. I wash my hands.

 

[Jamesiv1]

//

 

[Ronin Truth]

Indeed, RT, erowe and hb are correct.

Peter even speaks highly of Paul in his epistle.

Paul spent lots of time in Jerusalem with Peter, James, and the other apostles, and was ultimately accepted by them as an apostle himself, called by Jesus Himself.

The apostles had every reason to not want to accept Paul as an apostle -- yet they did. If they thought he was legit, so should we.

Ergo, his writings are apostolic and scripture, and preach the same gospel as all the other apostles and Christ himself.

It's Christianity 101, and this Jesus v. Paul stuff you're messing around with is just wrong.

Paul and Jesus don't teach a different salvation, or different doctrines. As you're fond of google searches, try something like "the apostleship of Paul" perhaps.

I found this: http://theos.org/media/category/124/

Who was the author of Peter's epistle? Look it up. While you're at it, who were the real authors of several of Paul's epistles?

I really don't need any more Paul apologetics or cheerleading, I get much more than enough of that here.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Who was the author of Peter's epistle?

Peter, between 50-67 A.D.

Look it up. While you're at it, who were the real authors of several of Paul's epistles?

Paul. y/w.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Peter, between 50-67 A.D.



Paul. y/w.

Check again.

 

[bunklocoempire]

To be concluded at: http://30ce.com/paulinechristianity.htm

The sub forum is Peace Through Religion.

Please show how this brings you peace OP, and therefore, peace to the world.

Thanks.

 

[erowe1]

Probably the same historical documents you refer to.

He was seeing things that weren't there, and hearing voices.

Merriam Webster
: something (such as an image, a sound, or a smell) that seems real but does not really exist and that is usually caused by mental illness or the effect of a drug
: perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD)

Dictionary.com
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.

I know of no historical sources that say that. Do you?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Check again.

Checked. I'm still correct. Thanks anyhoo. ~hugs~

 

[erowe1]

Questions about the authorship of the epistles of Peter or the disputed Pauline epistles are moot. It's very easy to prove that Paul had the approval of the apostles and brothers of Jesus who were with him in his earthly ministry just by the data available in the undisputed Pauline epistles.