Let's talk about Paul...

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

I've been through this scenario before but... I'll put it out there again. It can't be denied that if three people witness a car wreck when the police come to take a report they will receive three similar stories, however every detail will not match exactly. Why? Three different people saw it from three different perspectives.

Yes, but Paul wasn't actually there. He was nowhere Jesus when his disciples were following him and as far as we can tell, nowhere near Jesus when he was crucified or when he reappeared in front of the Disciples after his resurrection.

So then that disqualifies him as being one who could have any authority or knowledge at all on the subject of Jesus?

However, would you not agree that the devoted inquirer would want to know what Paul and Origen and Pamphilus and Eusebius did to the scriptural canon? In saying as much, i do not assert that we can ever know this--although things such as the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls suggest that it is not out of the realm of possibility that "pre-Pauline" or "pre-Origenian" texts might be discovered. In historiography, cui bono is the prime question in considering evidentiary reliability. So, i suppose i simply choose scepticism over a desire to belive, no?

I wasn't sure of your caffeine prejudices, i'd have been happy to offer you some of my personal dark roast caffica arabica/mild caffica robusta blend.

You lost me setanta...

I agree with hephzibah, God gave us free will, so much so that what we do is not preordained beforehand. Proof of that is in the bible where God said that some of the things people did never entered into his mind.

Quote:

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:

hephzibah wrote:

You lost me setanta...

Neo proposes discussing to what extent Paul, Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius edited and corrected the scriptural canon. As we have no evidence for what constituted the canon prior to those activities by those early christians, we would have nothing to discuss. With no grist for the mill, our mill wheel would just be spinning . . .

hephzibah wrote:

I'm going to reply to your question with a question for you...

Where did Paul change the original message to make it appealing to the Gentiles? I would like to see actual proof here please.

As far as your last question... I will ask again for proof of this.

Oh yeah... I have one more question for everyone reading this and thinking of responding...

What is it that makes your sources of information more credible than the sources that wrote the bible?

Heph, have you looked at the link I posted on page one? It's a pretty good detail of everything you're asking.

Setanta wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

You lost me setanta...

Neo proposes discussing to what extent Paul, Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius edited and corrected the scriptural canon. As we have no evidence for what constituted the canon prior to those activities by those early christians, we would have nothing to discuss. With no grist for the mill, our mill wheel would just be spinning . . .

However, we do have available the opinions of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Cyril, Cheltenham and others, as well as the canons of Eusebius and Origen to compare.

You say God is going to great pains to keep his activities a secret, yet how can you say that when you are not willing to see or believe those activities could be happening at all? Because God doesn't function within the boundaries that you have set up in your mind it appears you are saying, well he's just not working then...

Maybe you don't see it questioner, but what you are offering as a burden of proof here for God's absense is what PEOPLE are doing. Therefore if one were to read between the lines on this you are putting the blame on God directly for not "controling His people" by making His presence known. The same as the parents in the example I gave.

By "when you are not willing to see or believe those activities could be happening at all?" are you suggesting that I am silly to disbelieve the existence of God because I'm not ascribing what are deemed normal every-day occurences to supernatural influence? That seems a bit backwards.

And you say God doesn't act within the boundaries that I set up. . . well, that's really just a way for those that hold to belief over reason to justify their believing despite the gaping holes and lack of thoroughness that their 'god' has put forth as 'his word'. I know we won't see eye to eye on this, but at some point the being created 'in his image' has to represent him to some degree.

Personally, i consider a christian to hypocritical when they do not meet the standards of their professed creed. My standards are so low as to be almost invisible, and even christians can meet them--it they try real hard.

Do no harm.