Let's talk about Paul...

You betcha . . . there is nothing more disgusting to me than the "professional" atheists--the ones who are actually anti-theists, and who make a religion of their "atheism," and make Science their god. They usually know about as much about science as many christians do about the origins of their own religion.

Fortunately, i am above all of that, and am handsome and charming into the bargain.

0 Replies

I agree. I think anyone who will propose a theory about something should have a leg to stand on. Not only that though, they ought to also be willing to at least try to understand the other side of things. Even if they choose not to agree.

However, it saddens me to say this:

I fail to see how you being handsom and charming is relevant to this point....

Kidding! Only kidding! Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahaha! Gotcha!

0 Replies

Paul was my favorite when I was younger, but from late Wings on he got a little too sugary for me.

Definitely the best musician of the four though.

I guess on some level I prefer George.

0 Replies

Well, I hope this discussion isn't dead yet. I'm off to do some reading. The link JB posted has proved to be very interesting. I'll be back later to post some thoughts about it.

0 Replies

Bring a Boston Cream pie with you please. I'm starving.

0 Replies

Ah, good!

I started to write out my thoughts and realised I could either parrot much of what is in that link, or paste it here. I'm glad you're taking a look.

0 Replies

For you Questioner... anything! Would you like coffee with your boston creme pie?

JB, I will probably be pasting some of it here at some point so what we're talking about can be seen. The links Setanta gave are also proving to be quite informative too and I'm sure that will make an appearance here as well. It's just so much right now to try and take it all in! So I thought maybe as I read stuff we could all discuss it! I think this will help me to understand better. Smile

Catch ya later!

0 Replies

J_B, I shy away from off site links because it is difficult to ascertain if the entire article presents the whole and complete argument of the one posting the link.

Well, I finally clicked on your link from page one and found it heavy with unsupported conjecture. Are there any specific points you feel are relevant to this topic or may I feel free to dismiss the entire site after incinerating just one or two straw men?

0 Replies

neo, feel free to dismiss or incinerate anything you'd like. My purpose here is not to attempt to convince anyone that they are wrong and I am right. Heph ask for an explanation of what it is about Paul's teaching that people object to. I gave her a link that provides a good bit of background. If the article is not fully supported by it's bibliography and doesn't do a good enough job of explaination of the issues surrounding Paul for you then fine, dismiss away. I've read many other sources that back up the position. I posted a reference for her as well but I can't give her the books to read. I can simply point her in the direction.

If she has questions about my feelings about Paul after reading the background, I'll be happy to discuss them. If you have questions, ask away. I am not the one trying to make the point here.

0 Replies

Fair enough J_B; that's a perfectly good reason to post a link. But I could not find a direct answer to one question asked by heph:

hephzibah wrote:

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

I also would like to see specific passages from Paul's writings.

0 Replies

With Paul, one is least likely to have any evidence. He was born within a decade of the birth of the putative Jesus, and was just in his twenties when the putative Jesus was allegedly excecuted. We have no way of knowing if he knew anything of such an individual at the time, or the birth of the cult. What ought to be obvious, though is that he would have been in a better position than an subsequent scholar to have controlled what were the accepted gospels and testamentary writings--anything which escaped his attention would either have been obscure before 67 CE, or written thereafer (the date of his death).

0 Replies

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaack....

One boston cream pie for Questioner.....

Ok so let's get started here...

Quote:

That the central theme of Pauline theology is not to be found in the authentic teachings of Jesus is not the only disturbing thing about it. We find that in some cases Paul's teachings were actually diametrically opposite to Jesus'. As an example Jesus, believing in the imminent coming of the kingdom during his lifetime, taught his followers not to worry about what tomorrow would bring and to first seek the kingdom of God:

Matthew 6:25-34
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what you will wear...So do not worry, saying 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'. For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself."

Whatever we may feel about the merits of such teachings, its message is obvious: Jesus is telling his followers to eschew the normal everyday life of working for a living and to live the absolute ethic straight away while looking for the kingdom of God. But Pauline theology (written probably by one of Paul's disciples) opposes this and calls for believers to work for a living:

I believe what they are implying that Jesus was saying is wrong. He did not say don't work, He said don't worry about the things of this life. Big difference.

Quote:

For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly father knows that you need them.

Just in the wording of this particular translation it is clearly evident what was being said by the wording alone... "run after" ie: pursue or seek.
So I looked up the original greek word used in this scripture:

1934. epizeteo ep-eed-zay-teh'-o from 1909 and 2212; to search (inquire) for; intensively, to demand, to crave:--desire, enquire, seek (after, for).

So Jesus was saying the pagans "seek" these things, but I found it interesting that it was not the same word used when He was refering to what His followers were to do, "seek first the kindom of God":

2212. zeteo dzay-teh'-o of uncertain affinity; to seek (literally or figuratively); specially, (by Hebraism) to worship (God), or (in a bad sense) to plot (against life):--be (go) about, desire, endeavour, enquire (for), require, (X will) seek (after, for, means).

First it needs to be recognized He didn't just say "seek", He said "seek first". Had He just said "seek" the kingdom of God..." and used the same word in saying it, I might have been able to give this idea some merit. However, the word He used was similar but had a different context. It said nothing about demanding or craving, rather to worship or require.

So if I may paraphrase a bit, based on the definition, Jesus said the pagans search for; intensively, demand, crave, desire, enquire, seek (after, for) these things, but you seek; specially, worship (God), or be (go) about, desire, endeavour, enquire (for), require, (X will) seek (after, for, means) the kingdom of God first.

So what do you think? Does this sound accurate?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Fair enough J_B; that's a perfectly good reason to post a link. But I could not find a direct answer to one question asked by heph:
hephzibah wrote:
Where did Paul change the original message to make it appealing to the Gentiles? I would like to see actual proof here please.

I also would like to see specific passages from Paul's writings.

Using the word 'proof' in a religious context is ridiculous. Religion is the stuff of perception not proof. If there was 'actual proof' available then the roof would have been blown off centuries ago. If I asked you for proof of a miracle birth, or even proof that there was a historical Jesus, it would be impossible. There is evidence, but there is no proof and one's perception of the evidence taken in context with the available historical documentation can lead different people to different perceptions.

Heph, I took a quick read of your response above. I'm going to have to take a closer look at what you are saying, giving it more time than I have right now. I'll get back to you later.

0 Replies

No problem JB. I appreciate you letting me know this. Smile

0 Replies

I would still like to discuss this if anyone is game....

come on... are there any takers?

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Paul was my favorite when I was younger, but from late Wings on he got a little too sugary for me.

Definitely the best musician of the four though.

I guess on some level I prefer George.

You'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs. But lookin' round me and I see it isn't so.

Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs. What's wrong with that, I'd like to know.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Fair enough J_B; that's a perfectly good reason to post a link. But I could not find a direct answer to one question asked by heph:
hephzibah wrote:
Where did Paul change the original message to make it appealing to the Gentiles? I would like to see actual proof here please.

I also would like to see specific passages from Paul's writings.

Dittos.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

neologist wrote:
Fair enough J_B; that's a perfectly good reason to post a link. But I could not find a direct answer to one question asked by heph:
hephzibah wrote:
Where did Paul change the original message to make it appealing to the Gentiles? I would like to see actual proof here please.

I also would like to see specific passages from Paul's writings.

Using the word 'proof' in a religious context is ridiculous. Religion is the stuff of perception not proof. If there was 'actual proof' available then the roof would have been blown off centuries ago. . .

OK. How about an example?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Paul was my favorite when I was younger, but from late Wings on he got a little too sugary for me.

Definitely the best musician of the four though.

I guess on some level I prefer George.

You'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs. But lookin' round me and I see it isn't so.

Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs. What's wrong with that, I'd like to know.

Quote:

You live with straights who tell you you was king
Jump when your momma tell you anything
The only thing you done was yesterday
And since you're gone you're just another day
Ah, how do you sleep?
Ah, how do you sleep at night?

0 Replies

I'm not evading but I have extremely limited availability for the next few days. I'll catch you later.

0 Replies

Let's talk about Paul...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know