Is Paul arrogant?

[LASTINGLIGHT]

"His disciples -- who were Hebrews. Did not reject him."

The Bible Does Not say whether they were or not. If they were then he was the Messiah of the Jews. That brings up a lot of questions. Ask any real Jew if Jesus was the Messiah of the OT.

"Hellenized? Jesus was Galilean. Galileans were decidedly not hellenized."

He quoted the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. Even in Luke where he is supposed to be reading the Masoretic scroll he still quotes from the Septuagint. Was the scroll in Greek? If so he could read Greek. Quite a feat for the carpenters son. The Septuagint was created so Hellenized Jews whose language was Greek, could read the Hebrew texts. It was quite different than the Hebrew or Aramaic texts. Paul the Arrogant also only quoted from the Greek text and was a Roman citizen. Gamaliel who used the Hebrew and Aramaic text, claimed that Greek was an acceptable language for the text to be translated into, so Paul the Arrogant has an excuse. Philo and Josephus used the Greek but both had become Hellenized Jews. We do not know what language Jesus or his Apostles spoke but we know they only quoted Greek. Only in Matthew are there quotes from the Hebrew or Aramaic text. Matthew was translated into Hebrew early on so a very few of it's quotes come from the Hebrew. See Shem-Tobs Matthew. If Jesus could speak and read in Greek, he was most likely a Hellenized Jew. There is no evidence linguistically that Jesus was anything but a Greek speaking Jew. Linguistically speaking of course. If the early church had not destroyed the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, copies of the Setuagint, and other texts they deemed "heretical" we would know much much more. What were they afraid of?

"That's your problem. the rest of Xy doesn't have such a problem with it."

It's not a problem with me. I consider it a "heretical" text. The same way others consider the Gospel of Thomas to be "heretical". You yourself once said "It's all scripture, it's just not Canon". Like Eusebius did, I chose my own Canon. I am not a Xy. I don't follow the theology of Paul the Arrogant.

"Wild guess? Not following you here."

As to who wrote the Canonical Gospels is anyone's wild guess. At least the Gospel of Thomas claims to be written by Thomas.

"Then your arguments are not valid. You can't use one passage in the bible as irrefutable evidence that nothing in the bible is irrefutable."

Those were your words I agreed with.

 

[Simplelogic]

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

 

[sojourner]

The Bible Does Not say whether they were or not.

The bible doesn't need to state the obvious.

He quoted the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. Even in Luke where he is supposed to be reading the Masoretic scroll he still quotes from the Septuagint.

Doesn't make any difference. The gospels were written by Hellenized Jews or Gentiles, so, naturally, they would have Jesus quote the LXX.

It's not a problem with me. I consider it a "heretical" text.

You're welcome to do that, but labeling it so doesn't diminish the truth of the evidence it presents -- the same as Thomas, whether canon or not, is invaluable in the exegetical process.

Like Eusebius did, I chose my own Canon. I am not a Xy. I don't follow the theology of Paul the Arrogant.

That's your choice. But before you label Paul as "arrogant," you should study the texts responsibly.

As to who wrote the Canonical Gospels is anyone's wild guess. At least the Gospel of Thomas claims to be written by Thomas.

We're reasonably certain that it's not.

Those were your words I agreed with.

Doesn't matter. If that's the case, your arguments are still invalid.

 

[sojourner]

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

As if Thomas Jefferson can be considered any kind of authority on the matter...

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

"The bible doesn't need to state the obvious."

It's not obvious, just assumed. But I agree.

"Doesn't make any difference. The gospels were written by Hellenized Jews or Gentiles, so, naturally, they would have Jesus quote the LXX."

I agree. But most Christians would throw a fit if if you told them Jesus could have been a Hellenized Jew. But first they would ask what a Hellenized Jew is.

"You're welcome to do that, but labeling it so doesn't diminish the truth of the evidence it presents -- the same as Thomas, whether canon or not, is invaluable in the exegetical process."

The exegetical process in the case of the NT is a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing and many more that will not fit no matter what. I am certainly glad to see your are not opposed to reading and considering non-canonical scripture in the process. Remember the: "“And the companion of the S[avior . . .] Mary Magdalene [ . . . loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [ . . . ]”. Missing pieces, and just the ones we need too.

"That's your choice. But before you label Paul as "arrogant," you should study the texts responsibly."

I have. I can quote his arrogance if you want.

"We're reasonably certain that it's not."

I only said "claims". Very not likely though. But at least we have a claim, unlike the four canonical ones.

"Doesn't matter. If that's the case, your arguments are still invalid."

Due to the "jigsaw puzzle" all arguments are invalid.


“After my departure there will arise the ignorant and the crafty, and many things will they ascribe unto Me that I never spoke, and many things which I did speak will they withhold, but the day will come when the clouds shall be rolled away, and the Son of Righteousness shall shine forth with healing in his wings."
A Man Called Jesus

 

[Paranoid Android]

Paul claims that he is making up for things that lacked in Yeshua's sufferings:

24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (NIV)

Now I’m happy to be suffering for you. I’m completing what is missing from Christ’s sufferings with my body. I’m doing this for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Col 1:24, CEB)

Paul claimed that his spirit could be with believers in other places. Much like the Holy Spirit:

3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5:3-5 NIV.)

Paul tells others to follow ONLY his teachings (of which he NEVER quotes Yeshua)

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Tim. 2:15 NIV.)

Paul condemned fellowship with any that didn't adhere to his doctrine:

6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. (2 Thess 3:6 NIV.)

Paul elevated his own gospel which was "about" Yeshua. But had none of Yeshua's teachings:

25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, (1 Cor. 16:25 NIV.)

Rather than tell people to follow Jesus, as Jesus taught (Matt 4:19 "follow me"), Paul said:

16I call upon you, therefore, become ye followers of me; (1 Cor. 4:16 YLT.)

Paul claimed he was "set apart" at birth to reveal Yeshua,:

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. (Gal. 1:15-17 NIV.)

Paul claims to be crucified to the world:

14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal. 6:14 NIV.)

Sad. So sad. He was a blasphemer. Jesus is DEAD. Judaism should have been followed. Either your in or you can go to Hell.

 

[sojourner]

I can quote his arrogance if you want.

<Yawn...> Been there. Done that. Wrote theses on the T-Shirt. There's nothing new under the sun in that regard. It's an old, tired argument that's relatively baseless.

 

[sojourner]

Due to the "jigsaw puzzle" all arguments are invalid.

If that's what you think, you don't understand the exegetical process.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

Makes me wonder if Tommy ever read the Acts of the Apostles especially chapter 15
At Romans 12:10 Paul wrote to take the lead in showing honor to others.
Paul remained ' humble '- 1 Corinthians 15:9-11
Consider how Paul handled the circumcision problem when the Christian congregation was split on the matter.
- Acts of the Apostles 14:26 to Acts of the Apostles 15:2
Since Paul had been appointed to take the lead in preaching to the uncircumcised Gentiles, Paul could have thought of himself as an expert in dealing with non-Jews thus feeling qualified to resolve the problem on his own. - Galatians 2:8-9
When things were Not clearing up, with both humility and modesty, Paul went along with the arrangements of the governing body in Jerusalem in discussing the matter. Paul co-operated fully as those members (Not Paul) reached a decision. However, ' they ' assigned Paul to be one of ' their ' messengers - Acts of the Apostles 15:22-31
Thus, as Romans 12:10 says, Paul took the lead in humbly showing honor and respect to his fellow servants in Christ.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

If that's what you think, you don't understand the exegetical process.

I understand the process. But I can see all sides to it. I have no hesitation in exploring a viewpoint that I do not agree with. But facts, or what looks to be the most plausable explanation, are what dictate what I believe and what I do not. So we have did our thing. We have been watched closely on this topic and I hope we have started some people thinking outside their own beliefs for a change. Maybe they will say "I think I'll look this up to see", but I doubt it. When most people research what they believe, they usually look for affirmation of their own beliefs, no matter what the actual facts are. When I started my research, I had no beliefs, period. I became ill with a possibly fatal disease, and I decided to do a research of the afterlife. Being raised a Christian, that was the first placed I turned to. I started looking at the history of the NT, and I was appalled at what I found. But when I separated the words of Jesus from all the dogma of the commentators, I found a wandering, itinerant, philosopher who risked all to spread his message of good works, good deeds, humanity of all, love your neighbor and your enemies, forgive, non-violence, love, and above all "Do to others what you want them to do to you". I can see no Christian "church" that follows the great teachings of Jesus. We will debate again, but meanwhile Paul is arrogant. We can agree to disagree.

 

[sojourner]

I understand the process. But I can see all sides to it. I have no hesitation in exploring a viewpoint that I do not agree with. But facts, or what looks to be the most plausable explanation, are what dictate what I believe and what I do not. So we have did our thing. We have been watched closely on this topic and I hope we have started some people thinking outside their own beliefs for a change. Maybe they will say "I think I'll look this up to see", but I doubt it. When most people research what they believe, they usually look for affirmation of their own beliefs, no matter what the actual facts are. When I started my research, I had no beliefs, period. I became ill with a possibly fatal disease, and I decided to do a research of the afterlife. Being raised a Christian, that was the first placed I turned to. I started looking at the history of the NT, and I was appalled at what I found. But when I separated the words of Jesus from all the dogma of the commentators, I found a wandering, itinerant, philosopher who risked all to spread his message of good works, good deeds, humanity of all, love your neighbor and your enemies, forgive, non-violence, love, and above all "Do to others what you want them to do to you". I can see no Christian "church" that follows the great teachings of Jesus. We will debate again, but meanwhile Paul is arrogant. We can agree to disagree.

If you understand the process, then you must know that there's more to Jesus than just "a wandering, itinerant, philosopher who risked all to spread his message of good works, good deeds, humanity of all..." This is only the Jesus as portrayed by the gospels, which were 1) written late and 2) heavily influenced by Gentile culture. For a fuller picture of what the early photo-church believed, Paul is absolutely indispensable.

For my money, in order to get to probable Jesus teachings, you have to corroborate Q with Thomas. Both are Galilean, and both are very, very early.

 

[JoStories]

Makes me wonder if Tommy ever read the Acts of the Apostles especially chapter 15
At Romans 12:10 Paul wrote to take the lead in showing honor to others.
Paul remained ' humble '- 1 Corinthians 15:9-11
Consider how Paul handled the circumcision problem when the Christian congregation was split on the matter.
- Acts of the Apostles 14:26 to Acts of the Apostles 15:2
Since Paul had been appointed to take the lead in preaching to the uncircumcised Gentiles, Paul could have thought of himself as an expert in dealing with non-Jews thus feeling qualified to resolve the problem on his own. - Galatians 2:8-9
When things were Not clearing up, with both humility and modesty, Paul went along with the arrangements of the governing body in Jerusalem in discussing the matter. Paul co-operated fully as those members (Not Paul) reached a decision. However, ' they ' assigned Paul to be one of ' their ' messengers - Acts of the Apostles 15:22-31
Thus, as Romans 12:10 says, Paul took the lead in humbly showing honor and respect to his fellow servants in Christ.

You are using the Bible, and in particular, the writings that are allegedly from Paul to substantiate Paul. That is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, you are picking out the verses from others that substantiate your argument, which, in this argument, is also unacceptable. To be a good debate, one should use outside sources as well to bolster the debate. In essence, IMO, you are Paulian and not Christian. Which is fine if that is what works for you but it is clearly not what Christ taught.

 

[sojourner]

You are using the Bible, and in particular, the writings that are allegedly from Paul to substantiate Paul. That is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, you are picking out the verses from others that substantiate your argument, which, in this argument, is also unacceptable. To be a good debate, one should use outside sources as well to bolster the debate. In essence, IMO, you are Paulian and not Christian. Which is fine if that is what works for you but it is clearly not what Christ taught.

Wait... exactly what "outside sources" are we to look to in order to substantiate Paul?? You're not using "outside sources" in order to substantiate Christ. In what way is he different from Paul in that regard? How do you know that Paul, preaching less than two years after Jesus, doesn't have the more authentic teachings than the gospels, which were written at least 40 years -- and up to 70 or so years -- after the event?

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

If you understand the process, then you must know that there's more to Jesus than just "a wandering, itinerant, philosopher who risked all to spread his message of good works, good deeds, humanity of all..." This is only the Jesus as portrayed by the gospels, which were 1) written late and 2) heavily influenced by Gentile culture. For a fuller picture of what the early photo-church believed, Paul is absolutely indispensable.

For my money, in order to get to probable Jesus teachings, you have to corroborate Q with Thomas. Both are Galilean, and both are very, very early.

Q will be found one day.

 

[sojourner]

Q will be found one day.

It's already been extrapolated. It was probably never written down, but an oral tradition.

 

[leibowde84]

Read your bible and you'll find out.

The guy asks a question and this is how you respond?! It always bothers me when Christians seem to ignore the obvious reasons why some don't "buy into" the validity of the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

The guy asks a question and this is how you respond?! It always bothers me when Christians seem to ignore the obvious reasons why some don't "buy into" the validity of the Bible.

He obviously already knew and was asking an entrapping question. In that event, yes, that's how I respond. It always bothers me when people seem to ignore the obvious reasons why some don't buy into game playing in a debate.

 

[leibowde84]

He obviously already knew and was asking an entrapping question. In that event, yes, that's how I respond. It always bothers me when people seem to ignore the obvious reasons why some don't buy into game playing in a debate.

Fair enough. Should have looked more into it.

 

[Simplelogic]

Makes me wonder if Tommy ever read the Acts of the Apostles especially chapter 15
At Romans 12:10 Paul wrote to take the lead in showing honor to others.
Paul remained ' humble '- 1 Corinthians 15:9-11
Consider how Paul handled the circumcision problem when the Christian congregation was split on the matter.
- Acts of the Apostles 14:26 to Acts of the Apostles 15:2
Since Paul had been appointed to take the lead in preaching to the uncircumcised Gentiles, Paul could have thought of himself as an expert in dealing with non-Jews thus feeling qualified to resolve the problem on his own. - Galatians 2:8-9
When things were Not clearing up, with both humility and modesty, Paul went along with the arrangements of the governing body in Jerusalem in discussing the matter. Paul co-operated fully as those members (Not Paul) reached a decision. However, ' they ' assigned Paul to be one of ' their ' messengers - Acts of the Apostles 15:22-31
Thus, as Romans 12:10 says, Paul took the lead in humbly showing honor and respect to his fellow servants in Christ.

-Peter was appointed by God to the gentiles….not Paul.

7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. Acts 15: 7

-You can't convince me that "Paul remained humble" by quoting Paul!! This is bad logic. Just because Paul says he remained humble does not mean he really was. Also, how many truly humble people do you know that talk about their humility?

I don't regard the "acts of the apostles" as from the twelve.

 

[leibowde84]

You are using the Bible, and in particular, the writings that are allegedly from Paul to substantiate Paul. That is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, you are picking out the verses from others that substantiate your argument, which, in this argument, is also unacceptable. To be a good debate, one should use outside sources as well to bolster the debate. In essence, IMO, you are Paulian and not Christian. Which is fine if that is what works for you but it is clearly not what Christ taught.

It's a well known logical fallacy called circular reasoning. And you're right. Doesn't prove a thing.