Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[angellous_evangellous]

I competent enough to know what you are.

I screwed up on AD, my dates are fine just wasnt getting translated that way.

I was going by 35 years after death which puts my age of mark the same as all scholars roughly between 64-70

Yes, that makes a lot more sense.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, that makes a lot more sense.

I was wrong about the temple to while were at it lol

didnt mark make refference to the temples destruction and thats how they dated it so?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was wrong about the temple to while were at it lol

didnt mark make refference to the temples destruction and thats how they dated it so?

Sort of. It depends on how one interprets the parable of the fig tree.

Not a very reliable means of dating, IMHO.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Therefore is Paul states that the Law is itself a curse and Yaheshua is the fullfillment of the law does that mean that Paul sees Christ's coming as a curse, truly a contradiction of this nature an accusation towards the character of Yaheshua would logically in my mind indicate that Paul was not receiving his mission from Christ and therefore is a fake a liar and definitely least of all apostle of the lord and his gospel.

I like to think of this subject in the context of, what if Paul lied? Many Christians are putting their salvation on the line believing in Pauline principles rather than what Jesus actually said.

My biggest problem is, in real life, Jesus decided who should lead his church after his death. Why would he appear to a complete stranger after his death if he gave charge of his ministry to Peter?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I like to think of this subject in the context of, what if Paul lied? Many Christians are putting their salvation on the line believing in Pauline principles rather than what Jesus actually said.

My biggest problem is, in real life, Jesus decided who should lead his church after his death. Why would he appear to a complete stranger after his death if he gave charge of his ministry to Peter?

There's no quanitative difference here.

It doesn't matter if Paul "lied" or not because his writings were accepted by the churches before these same churches produced the Gospels, which affirm Paul. Then the same churches collected the Gospels and the Pauline writings and used them together for more than 300 years until the canonization process was relatively complete.

The Pauline corpus and the Gospels began complimentary and remain so today.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There's no quanitative difference here.

It doesn't matter if Paul "lied" or not because his writings were accepted by the churches before these same churches produced the Gospels, which affirm Paul. Then the same churches collected the Gospels and the Pauline writings and used them together for more than 300 years until the canonization process was relatively complete.

The Pauline corpus and the Gospels began complimentary and remain so today.

That is well and good, but the subject of, "no one goes to the father except through the son" excludes Muslims and Jews, (except for 144,000 repentant jews).

Not to get side tracked, my point is, if the trinity is one God, the God of Issac and Abraham, why would it make any difference if we prayed directly to God himself instead of Jesus? It is the same God right?

Secondly, if the only way to the father is through the son, does that mean all Muslims and most Jews will burn in hell?

AE, I'm not wanting to be disrespectful, I believe you to be the most qualified among us to seriously address this issue.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is well and good, but the subject of, "no one goes to the father except through the son" excludes Muslims and Jews, (except for 144,000 repentant jews).

Not to get side tracked, my point is, if the trinity is one God, the God of Issac and Abraham, why would it make any difference if we prayed directly to God himself instead of Jesus? It is the same God right?

Secondly, if the only way to the father is through the son, does that mean all Muslims and most Jews will burn in hell?

AE, I'm not wanting to be disrespectful, I believe you to be the most qualified among us to seriously address this issue.

No, I think that it means that Jesus is the door, the means by which anyone can get to the Father. That is to say - a person does not choose Jesus as the way - the Father has chosen to have mercy on the world through Christ.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, I think that it means that Jesus is the door, the means by which anyone can get to the Father. That is to say - a person does not choose Jesus as the way - the Father has chosen to have mercy on the world through Christ.

That is a pretty good answer. :yes:

Now, WHAT IF Paul did lie? Muslims and Jews are standing on good ground, but if a person prays to Jesus only, what if God said, did Jesus say to pray to him only?

My only point here is, Christians are depending on what Paul says to be true for their salvation.

The church and the cannon is of man. I believe the church is not the deciding factor, but what God thinks about all this.

If the trinity is true, we Christians have nothing to worry about.

I don't remember Jesus saying anything about the trinity.

I take the words of Jesus and God above any cannon.

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

[sojourner]

Now, WHAT IF Paul did lie? Muslims and Jews are standing on good ground, but if a person prays to Jesus only, what if God said, did Jesus say to pray to him only?

My only point here is, Christians are depending on what Paul says to be true for their salvation.

The Xians who do that, while I feel it's OK if it works for them, are not representative of the corpus of Xy. Xy is so much more than Paul.

The church and the cannon is of man. I believe the church is not the deciding factor, but what God thinks about all this.

Except that God chose to reveal God's Self through the Church. That makes the church inseparable from "what God thinks." And by "church" I don't mean "authoritative structure." I mean the organic Body of Christ, of which we are all part.

If the trinity is true, we Christians have nothing to worry about.

I don't remember Jesus saying anything about the trinity.

I take the words of Jesus and God above any cannon.

Any comments would be appreciated.

well, I don't think we have anything to worry about even if the Trinity is wrong. God still saves. But for me (and the preponderance of the church), the very nature of the gospel and of God's work of salvation lies in the mystery that God put on human flesh in order to reconcile us to God's Self.

 

[outhouse]

I take the words of Jesus and God above any cannon.

The problem is we only know jesus words through the cannon, from unknown authors who never knew or met jesus.

When it all comes down to it, we have oral tradition from a movement. Movements like this will not hold oral tradition as true as established religions. WE had a story growing during this movement, the tales from different perspectives were far and wide. Only later to be cherry picked for content.

I think its why I like Thomas, guessing it may be as close to jesus real words that portrays him. And by the date its written i dont have much faith at all in it either.

 

[outhouse]

the very nature of the gospel and of God's work of salvation lies in the mystery that God put on human flesh in order to reconcile us to God's Self.

If we peel back history in layers, its not much of a mystery now is it?????

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is a pretty good answer. :yes:

Now, WHAT IF Paul did lie? Muslims and Jews are standing on good ground, but if a person prays to Jesus only, what if God said, did Jesus say to pray to him only?

My only point here is, Christians are depending on what Paul says to be true for their salvation.

The church and the cannon is of man. I believe the church is not the deciding factor, but what God thinks about all this.

If the trinity is true, we Christians have nothing to worry about.

I don't remember Jesus saying anything about the trinity.

I take the words of Jesus and God above any cannon.

Any comments would be appreciated.

IMHO, there are no words of Jesus // God as such. I assume that you're talking about the words of Jesus in the NT (???), which must be read in light of the fact that the communities who promoted these teachings almost certainly knew of Paul. Instead of attacking him or censuring him, they merrily went on their way with creating the rest of the NT.

If we are using the NT as a source for what Jesus said, then we should understand that Paul did not deviate from the teachings of Jesus. Instead, Jesus is a deradicalization of Paul.

 

[sojourner]

If we peel back history in layers, its not much of a mystery now is it?????

Why not?

 

[idav]

IMHO, there are no words of Jesus // God as such. I assume that you're talking about the words of Jesus in the NT (???), which must be read in light of the fact that the communities who promoted these teachings almost certainly knew of Paul. Instead of attacking him or censuring him, they merrily went on their way with creating the rest of the NT.

If we are using the NT as a source for what Jesus said, then we should understand that Paul did not deviate from the teachings of Jesus. Instead, Jesus is a deradicalization of Paul.

If Paul had been promoting something said to have come from the mouth of Jesus during his life then we would be having a very different conversation. To imply that the gospels came from Pauls teachings is a bit of a stretch.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If Paul had been promoting something said to have come from the mouth of Jesus during his life then we would be having a very different conversation. To imply that the gospels came from Pauls teachings is a bit of a stretch.

To take that from what I wrote is a quantum leap.

 

[idav]

To take that from what I wrote is a quantum leap.

I could say the opposite of what you said. Paul deviated from Jesus and was a radicilization of what Jesus said.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I could say the opposite of what you said. Paul deviated from Jesus and was a radicilization of what Jesus said.

Precisely. That's what a lot of people think, which is historically impossible.

Paul came first. Then the Gospels.

That's not to say that Paul did not know of some Jesus traditions, but his writings were in the churches and circulated before the Gospels. But it's not like Paul knew of the Gospels and radicalized them. It had to be the other way around.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is curious all this talk about Paul being a "fake."

He's the original gangsta.

[youtube]vm0OtzPU0Zk[/youtube]
‪Obama Damn it feels good to be a gangsta‬‏ - YouTube

 

[Shermana]

I understand AD and CE

I thought there was a 33 year difference between the two, I stand corrected



I see mark has a 64-70CE spread among scholars

There's no quanitative difference here.

It doesn't matter if Paul "lied" or not because his writings were accepted by the churches before these same churches produced the Gospels, which affirm Paul. Then the same churches collected the Gospels and the Pauline writings and used them together for more than 300 years until the canonization process was relatively complete.

The Pauline corpus and the Gospels began complimentary and remain so today.

And what hard evidence is there to the use of the Epistles themselves before Marcion?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And what hard evidence is there to the use of the Epistles themselves before Marcion?

Orange juice.