Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[Shermana]

No, Matthew had Jesus say that for his own reasons. Are you calling yourself a Matthean now?

So you're saying that Matthew wrote his own interpolations? You even misinterpreted the conclusion of your own journal. It said there was a "Marked" reluctance to discuss scholarly disproval of the authenticity of Matthew 5:17-20, probably because no scholar wants to risk that grendae exploding on them, (AKA while everyone else is pointing out interpolations happily, NO ONE is officially writing anything about 5:17-20 for a "marked" reason) and Banks said that the passage was authentic after all.

Your idea that if it doesn't appear in Luke (aka "Q") it's invalid means that only 25% of Luke and Matthew are legit. Are you aware that many scholars have a problem with the concept of Q?

You also said something about "Getting a copy of Q", can you please provide a link for this copy of Q? Or are you aware that Q is a totally HYPOTHETICAL document? Are you aware that scholars are divided as to whether or not the "Q" method is a valid way to interpret what is an interpolation? Your idea is that if anything is unique to Matthew, it must be wrong. Well that's not very scholarly.

 

[Shermana]

Reading from Matthew 5:17 onwards, it becomes clear that the
"laws" being referred to are the Ten Commandments, reading
further, there are direct instructions in what manner Christians
should 'break' certain traditional laws.
Add to this the many other NT references to the way in which
Christians should either adhere or not adhere to various laws,
the logical conclusion is that the 'strict following of OT law'
argument is not credible.

The only manner of instruction how to "break the Law" involves healing people and rescuing animals on Sabbath. What else do you possibly conclude? Do you base these life-saving exceptions as an excuse to now mine coal and do heavy labor on Sabbath?

You say "It's not credible"...why? Clearly Jesus even includes more than the 10 commandments when he tells the Rich man to "not defraud". Please back up your claims. If Jesus taught any Lawlessness, they would have actually found him guilty of something at his trial instead of trumping up charges. Same with Paul, if Paul taught any lawlessness, they would have found him guilty at his trial. I can repeat this part until you realize why it is in fact credible.

Perhaps you also ignored 1 John 3? "Sin is transgression of the Law".

And even Paul seems to actually stick up for the Law in Romans 3:31 and 2:13. The whole "New perspective on Paul' follows this understanding that Paul actually supported the Law, and those who say otherwise are just cherrypicking him out of context. Like people who say that Jesus said you can break the Law on Sabbath (for reasons other than saving lives)/

Your idea that its not credible is not credible.

Did you ignore the part about Jesus saying "Do not flee on the Sabbath day"? Yes you did.

Enjoy being known as "The least".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're a patient man, angellous. :yes:

I don't think that I've ever been accused of that. :foryou:

 

[Shermana]

Even circular logic makes more sense than this confused,innarticulate
drivel. There is no point in arguing with you, obviously, as you haven't
taken seriously any of the facts presented to you, rendering your theories
absolutely meaningless. Instead of continuing this "debate", I'll simply
leave you to your own opinions.

I see you totally ignored the specific facts I brought up. Funny. That's really cute, accusing me of ignoring facts while snipping over half my reply. What facts are you claiming I totally ignored exactly? Specifically.

 

[Desert Snake]

I see you totally ignored the specific facts I brought up. Funny. That's really cute, accusing me of ignoring facts while snipping over half my reply. What facts are you claiming I totally ignored exactly? Specifically.

"specifically"...are you joking? Almost everything you write is a misinterpretation,
or taken out of context.

 

[Shermana]

"specifically"...are you joking? Almost everything you write is a misinterpretation,
or taken out of context.

Nice, why don't you start with the reply that you snipped and explain how what I posted is out of context. And if you got another example from the previous responses that would be great.

Are you saying Baur didn't think that the original Church was Torah-obedient/(Jewish) and that there was a developing power struggle between the Paulines and Petrines? All he said regarding Luke was that Marcion had something closer to the original Luke, but it was still an edited version. He still thought the original (Pre-Pauline) Church was all Torah observant.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nice, why don't you start with the reply that you snipped and explain how what I posted is out of context. And if you got another example from the previous responses that would be great.

Are you saying Baur didn't think that the original Church was Torah-obedient/(Jewish) and that there was a developing power struggle between the Paulines and Petrines? All he said regarding Luke was that Marcion had something closer to the original Luke, but it was still an edited version. He still thought the original (Pre-Pauline) Church was all Torah observant.

haha - got a quote for that? (from Baur and not someone else)

 

[Shermana]

haha - got a quote for that? (from Baur and not someone else)

http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=9XBCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader



On pages 146-148 (Use the "Contents" to skip to the "The (R)elation of Christianity to Judaism and Heathenism. 154-155 clearly demonstrate that he believes Paul held what would be more considered the "New Perspective on Paul" though it does seem that Paul is still "demoting" the Law from "Absolute Value" to be more of a "Behavioral Aid", but a "Behavioral Aid" nonetheless. It is still "faith" which grants the believer justification nonetheless in Paul's eyes though the Law is the separation between heathendom.

"This is enough to show that Judaism in the form of the Law does not stand in such a merely negative relation to Christianity as the Apostle's words seem at first sight to imply."

Nonetheless, the later "Paulines" and those of the "Jerusalem Church" (whom existed before Paul) would still grow to their clashes after Paul. On Page 158, he says that such a view of holding the Law as still binding though degraded to "Subordinate" status from what was once "Absolute Value" though still guidelines against sin, "Antinomian "Gnostics" (i.e. like Marcion) found use of it to their own views. But nonetheless, if the Law is a schoolmaster, that means you abide by what the Schoolmaster teaches.

"How can it be said then that the Law is made void through faith, when justification by faith simply realizes that which the Law contains already as its universal, as the conception breaking through the particular form?"

In any event, the Jerusalem Church alone should be proof that the "Original" Church was thoroughly Law abiding.

 

[earlwooters]

I hope all of you are enjoying yourselves. I guess it's gives you something to do. Could you get back to the thread? Maybe it all comes down to the definition of an Apostle. I was speaking to a clergyman who told me how he dismissed Mormon recruiters by asking them if their church had twelve Apostles, and naturally they said yes. He then gave them the definition of the qualifications needed by an Apostle as stated in the Bible when Judas died. They were not amused. Did Paul meet those qualifications?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*sigh*

You can't force the quote to say what you said that Baur believed. It looks to me like you didn't even try.

 

[Katzpur]

I hope all of you are enjoying yourselves. I guess it's gives you something to do. Could you get back to the thread? Maybe it all comes down to the definition of an Apostle. I was speaking to a clergyman who told me how he dismissed Mormon recruiters by asking them if their church had twelve Apostles, and naturally they said yes. He then gave them the definition of the qualifications needed by an Apostle as stated in the Bible when Judas died. They were not amused. Did Paul meet those qualifications?

The Bible doesn't state the qualifications a person must meet in order to be an Apostle. The Bible merely states the qualifications that the Apostles were looking for in the individual they chose.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible doesn't state the qualifications a person must meet in order to be an Apostle. The Bible merely states the qualifications that the Apostles were looking for in the individual they chose.

... and if it did, would it matter?

 

[Desert Snake]

And even Paul seems to actually stick up for the Law in Romans 3:31 and 2:13.

Once again you've taken things out of context and didn't get
the meaning right. If you read before and after these verses
it's plain that it doesn't mean at all what you're implying.

 

[Shermana]

Once again you've taken things out of context and didn't get
the meaning right. If you read before and after these verses
it's plain that it doesn't mean at all what you're implying.

Oh really? And what do you suppose the meaning of those verses are in context to the others? I've noticed in most discussions of Paul, the defenders like to dodge from those verses, what's your take on them.

Do you think nobody notices when you just make accusations without substantiating? I still like how you accused me of ignoring facts while cutting out half of my reply. I mean, that was seriously funny. And to add icing on the cake, you delete your post afterwards once I call you out on it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In any event, the Jerusalem Church alone should be proof that the "Original" Church was thoroughly Law abiding.

Baur would poop kittens if he saw how badly you abuse his work.

Are you saying Baur didn't think that the original Church was Torah-obedient/(Jewish) and that there was a developing power struggle between the Paulines and Petrines? All he said regarding Luke was that Marcion had something closer to the original Luke, but it was still an edited version. He still thought the original (Pre-Pauline) Church was all Torah observant.

Can you quote Baur saying actually saying this, or do we have to rely on your nonsensical, mutilated misinterpretation of him?

This is critical because you are deducing this from people who quote Baur, but the problem is you're reading this secondary source in light of your exceptionally odd view of history. So the disconnect between your interpretation and what Baur actually said is more than a little acute.

 

[earlwooters]

My apologies. I forgot that all you need to be an Apostle is to proclaim yourself one. It worked for Paul and still works for The Quorum of the Twelve.

 

[Reverend Rick]

i think he's a liar...he did say that jesus came to him after all.
and i find it interesting that jesus didn't let his brother james take over...or any of his disciples...paul was just a better politician then the other poor blokes...

I thought Jesus left Peter in charge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought Jesus left Peter in charge.

There was more than one church, Rick.

James took Jerusalem, Peter took Rome.

Neither one was the seat of the church.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There was more than one church, Rick.

James took Jerusalem, Peter took Rome.

Neither one was the seat of the church.

All right, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter's deeds and that is why he appeared to a stranger on the road to Damascus?

Seriously, why the need for Paul? Even if Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter why not appear to them instead of Paul?

I believe Paul lied about Jesus appearing to him.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All right, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter's deeds and that is why he appeared to a stranger on the road to Damascus?

Seriously, why the need for Paul? Even if Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter why not appear to them instead of Paul?

I believe Paul lied about Jesus appearing to him.

Well, according to Acts, Jesus did appear to James and Peter first. Several years before the conversion of Paul, in fact.

There's also agreement between Galatians 2 and Acts 17 concerning Paul's trip to see them in Jerusalem - in an attempt to get on the same page regarding Gentiles.

I don't think that we're in a position to say that Paul lied about "seeing" Jesus. Acts says far more about it than Paul does, and he didn't have anything to do with that. Paul's description about the event is extremely general "and he appeared to me last of all as one abnormally born." That's it, that's all that Paul says. He doesn't give us any details about the "appearance" at all, which obviously is nothing compared to making up the elaborate stories in Acts.